July 2005 doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0727r0

IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs

Minutes of WNG SC July 2005 Session
Date: 2005-07-18
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Stephen McCann / Siemens Roke Manor / Roke Manor Research, Romsey, UK / +44 1794 833341 /

Contents

Executive Summary 2

Afternoon session Monday 16:00 – 18:00 2

Logistics and Agenda (11-05-0684r0) 2

TGu overview (11-05-652r1) – Stephen McCann 2

IEEE 802.1AM PAR comments 3

IEEE 802.1 AM PAR Comments (11-05-635r1) – Andrew Myles 3

IEEE 802.1 AM PAR Comments (11-05-675r2) - Roger Durand 3

Straw Polls 5

802.11 scope (11-05-668r0) Mike Moreton 6

Completion of WNG meeting 9

Executive Summary

  1. IEEE 802.1AM PAR issues. This issue stimulated much discussion and excellent debate. The conclusion was to hold two straw polls which reflected the feelings of the membership. In summary it is felt that this PAR is rather immature and the whole issue should be re-considered by IEEE 802.1.
  1. Update on TGu and impact on other task groups. This presentation summarized the current objectives and goals of TGu and how its work possibly impacts other task groups within IEEE 802.11.
  1. AP – AP Communications. The presentation mentions how AP to AP communications was not really solved by previous work within IEEE 802.11.2 (TGF) and now is the time to re-consider this initiative. The presentation concluded with a motion, requesting that members consider this issue to be within the IEEE 802.11 scope.

4.  802.11 MAC extensions for high rate video. This detailed presentation states that even with the introduction of IEEE 802.11e (QoS amendment), high rate video can only be supported over IEEE 802.11, through the introduction of more advanced techniques.

Afternoon session Monday 16:00 – 18:00

Logistics and Agenda (11-05-0684r0)

WNG Meeting called to order by the chairman TK Tan (Philips) at 16:05. There were 3 new people in attendance this meeting.

The objectives of the session and the IEEE 802 & IEEE 802.11 Policies and Rules were reviewed.

Patents and By-laws read out by TK Tan, together with licensing terms and associated conditions.

Attendance issues for this week only were explained by TK Tan. The agenda was reviewed (11-05-684r0) and approved unanimously.

The minutes from the May 2005 meeting (11-05-0486r1) were reviewed (executive summary). It was noted that no-one has replied to Jesse Walker’s May request for further submissions on multicast problems. No comments were received and they were also approved unanimously (Proposed T.K. Tan, Seconded Roger Durand)

TGu overview (11-05-652r1) – Stephen McCann

Stephen presented a summary of the IEEE 802.11 TGu activity, describing some next text written to explain the objectives and goals of this group.

Q: Need to update version on the server with r1

Q: What is inside the IEEE 802.11 AN cloud.

A : Not defined yet, still gathering requirements.

Q: Example of TGu compliant device

A: 802.11 STA which want to connect through to IMS and MBMS services

IEEE 802.1AM PAR comments

IEEE 802.1 AM PAR Comments (11-05-635r1) – Andrew Myles

Andrew speaks to delay IEEE 802.1AM PAR and perhaps take it into an alternative forum. Against pointed out that this his own personal submission.

Technical reasons with the PAR. The PAR was developed without the co-operation of the wireless groups. There is limited interest in this PAR and indeed they lack the expertise within IEEE 802.1 to do this.

Submission also states that at the end of the San Antonio tutorial there was a lack of interest in it. It appears that IEEE 802.1 then took this forward and produced the PAR in isolation.

Conclusion : Delay the IEEE 802.1 AM PAR, so that it can be discussed further with some more background and expertise.

IEEE 802.1 AM PAR Comments (11-05-675r2) - Roger Durand

Roger speaks in support of this PAR. This is his own personal submission.

Companies are starting to do different things with the standards now and this can differentiation be addressed by IEEE 802.1AM. Addresses multi-system multi-functional interoperability.

IEEE 802.1 group is addressing IEEE 802 architecture and hence they are the place to do this.

Questions

For the PAR: A common denominator is very useful. This is useful for the future.

Against the PAR: It appears to be for a common dictionary. How does language help with co-existence.

For: IEEE 802.1AM is not addressing co-existence, IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.16 may share the same spectrum.

Against: Ok, what about the re-use factor. Can you purchase a common stack. It mentions code re-use.

For: No, if one is building a product, then as an overall system, you can have common use.

Against: A few years ago IETF tried to solve generic problems for different link layers. They really struggled. For example, would IEEE 802.11k become irrelevant in the future, if this goes ahead.

For: What happens if you have a IEEE 802.11j connection though with IEEE 802.11k. Can it handle this at the moment.

Against: At some companies people have avoided wireless and suddenly they are no deploying it. Hence I’m very concerned about wired people taking on wireless activities and it usually requires reworking afterwards.

For: This should be done by both wireheads and airheads. Expertise is in both IEEE 802.1 and wireless groups.

Question to presenters: What is the scope of RF management in this context? RF infrastructure or just a RF client in the STA.

For: The expertise resides in multiple groups within IEEE 802. They should somehow come together.

Regarding the company issue, this make it easier to do distributed management, as opposed to central management. Regarding the RF management and scope, IEEE 802.1AM enables RF management.

Question: But is this from an operator or user point of view? Is this achievable?

Chairman : Let’s go back to the original point.

Against: Ok, so what will IEEE 802.1AM do with the wireless comments? Surely they’ll only take what they want. There is some offense taken to IEEE 802.1’s attitude to wireless expertise, within IEEE 802.11.

Statement: IEEE 802.1AM would like to work with the wireless groups and so far they have not worked with the wireless groups. So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. To push it forward with the approval of the wireless groups would be a mistake.

Against: Ok, so what are we doing here? What is re-use here? What does this dictionary mean?

For : It is a dictionary. Capabilities will be built on top of this.

Against: So IEEE 802.1AM are only defining a dictionary??

For It’s not clear. Architecture is being decided by PARs and not by task groups. This PAR has been actually drafted over some period of time.

Against : It’s not really wired v wireless. What is the impact on IEEE 802.11?

Generally feeling within WNG SC, is that people do not understand this PAR.

Chairman : Shall we start a new PAR

For : We thought the wireless groups would give feedback on this specific PAR.

Against : Actually we did create output documents from the Wireless Ad Hoc Architecture meeting on Monday morning. Let’s continue to take this forward.

Against: The alternative is to allow IEEE 802.1AM PAR to continue and let’s see what happens. If they have faith in it, then let them do it.

Chairman : We need to give the IEEE 802.11 WG Chair direct feedback from WNG SC as to what he should recommend at ExCom on Friday.

Q : I am in support of this PAR. You can not control neighbors networks, this is just not possible. IEEE 802.15 and IEEE 802.11 networks in the same home could be controlled by a common system and this seems to be supported by what was said earlier.

Against: Common management would be great in the home, but this does not require a common management interface. It leverages the existing management systems within each system.

Q : For example, SNMP on IEEE 802.15 and IEEE 802.11. I don’t see channel and power in the PAR

Against : Yes, they are there in the PAR but there should be other parameters in there. The people who are proposing this should have some idea of all the measurements they want to make. For this effort to be worthwhile, many parameters should be consider, not just 2. Hence IEEE 802.1AM is looking at the lowest common denominator, rather than a common management approach.

Q : But the PAR implies other parameters, which have not been mentioned, e.g. received signal strength.

Why can not these go into a common management interface? I think there are really more than two.

Against: Ok, but that’s what the IETF tried to do, and failed. Look at SSID for example.

For : The named parameters within the PAR were only examples.

Q: Surely IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15 and IEEE 802.16 should address common parameters.

Against: I suspect that this PAR does not have any more contents behind it, than what is written.

For : I would argue against this, as you have limits to be what can be written in the PAR.

Against: Are the supporters of the PAR working for network management companies?

For : Yes, as an example I am.

Statement : We have loads of parameters within IEEE 802.11k which are applicable. Country, power capability, neighborhood lists etc.

Q: Both of these arguments are not addressing the ‘energy in the air’ issue. People appear to be nervous within IEEE 802.11 about this IEEE 802.1 PAR, which they are supposed to be subservient to.

Chairman : There is a need for a management framework, but we don’t know how to take this forward.

For : Tony Jeffries will come to IEEE 802.11 on Wednesday, to address IEEE 802.1AM issues. Specific questions should then be addressed to him. However, I’m sure what specific conclusion we have come to here.

Against: There are about 20 specific questions at the end of my document which need to be addressed.

Statement: We should address more of these issues within a new Study Group, rather than bringing them up in the PAR. Because IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.16 have not participated within the IEEE 802.1 Study Group phase.

Against: So, let’s delay the PAR and get them to re-consider it.

Q : Ok, I agree that we should delay the PAR and help to re-work it.

For : There is a lot of politicking going on here.

Chairman : Ok, but lets not talk about that.

Statement : But standards only work, when they are generically supported.

Chairman : There is a need for a solution to this problem. It needs co-operation between IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.1

For: The IEEE 802.1 provides a cross standard approach to management. Hence IEEE 802.1 is the only place that this can be really done. This is really required for the future of products. The ownership of the problem does not lie within the wireless groups.

Chairman : So how do we get the best minds together on this.

For : Lets get IEEE 802.1 to meet with the wireless groups at interims then.

Q : Look at IEEE 802.22 which caused an argument between IEEE 802.16 and IEEE 802.11. How there is no expertise within

IEEE 802.22, as they sponsors will not allow them together.

Q : Does IEEE 802.1AM look at wired management.

For: No, this is specifically for wireless.

Conclusion : Not to endorse either Andrew’s or Roger’s presentation.

Against : This group recommends that IEEE 802.1AM PAR be delayed or withdrawn, so it can discussed fully with the IEEE 802 wireless groups. At some point in the future the PAR can be re-introduced.

Against : Some sort of study group within IEEE 802.1 should be established to take this analysis further. The PAR need not be passed for this to happen.

For : Normally, IEEE 802.1 does not have study groups, it just writes PARs.

Chairman: Ok, let’s produce some straw polls to gauge the feeling of WNG. This will then be reported back to the WG.

Straw Polls

Recommendation from IEEE 802.11 WNG SC to IEEE 802.11 WG that the IEEE 802.1AM PAR approval is postponed. It would like to see a study group created within IEEE 802.1, with the intention of revising this PAR to address the RF management issue, ensuring that stakeholders within the wireless groups are invited. Such meetings should be collocated with the IEEE 802 wireless interims.

IEEE 802.11 should therefore invite IEEE 802.1 to participate in their interims.

Straw poll : 23 (for), 4 (against), 2 (abstain)

Recommendation from IEEE 802.11 WNG SC to IEEE 802.11 WG that it would like to see a study group created within IEEE 802.1, with the intention of revising the approved IEEE 802.1AM PAR to address the RF management issue, ensuring that stakeholders within the wireless groups are invited. Such meetings should be collocated with the IEEE 802 wireless interims.

IEEE 802.11 should therefore invite IEEE 802.1 to participate in their interims.

Straw poll : 7 (for), 13 (against), 7 (abstain)

802.11 scope (11-05-668r0) Mike Moreton

There is no specific document which describes the scope of IEEE 802.11. However, there is an 802 scope document, which covers almost everything. Within this it does mention IEEE 802.11, in a limited way. It talks about the MAC sub-layer.

However, this MAC sub-layer is not just the MAC. It does not limit us to a peer to peer protocol. Seems to be anything that is not the PHY layer. Additionally ISO 7 layer model is not actually reality, and the GPRS stack diagram is a good example of something that breaks this. A layer presents a service to the next layer up.